Posted on 06/21/2003 9:40:08 PM PDT by freedom44
Reemerging from nearly two months of relative silence on the topic, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich held a roundtable with about a dozen journalists Tuesday to discuss his latest criticism of the State Department, a provocative essay in Foreign Policy magazine in which he calls for a "top-to-bottom transformation" of Foggy Bottom. Predictably, State had no substantive critique of his comments, with a top official using familiar invective instead.
In a free-wheeling discussion that last more than an hour, Gingrich spelled out a vision that may have seemed bold, but actually was surprisingly realistic in scope. The most far-reaching reform he proposes, in fact, is to overhaul State's communication machine, which has a terrible track record of promoting America's interests in the foreign press. Discussing the hostile coverage of the U.S. on the British Broadcasting Company television during the recent war, Gingrich writes, "Today, the United States does not have a strategy, structure, or resource allocation capable of dealing with this sort of opposition."
Though the press will no doubt play this latest critique as a "broadside" — the magazine's editorial decision to put an unflattering photo of Colin Powell on the cover will only feed that perception — Gingrich's case this time around was much more refined. Using far fewer superlatives than at his now-famous American Enterprise Institute speech, the former Speaker made a number of concrete policy suggestions, many of which were originally recommended some seven months before 9/11 by the Hart-Rudman commission on which served. Most are fairly wonkish policy outlines, such as creating a bipartisan panel to vet all ambassadorial candidates to make sure they have the requisite knowledge and management skills to represent the U.S. effectively.
Though Gingrich may have offered up a more nuanced argument than before, State certainly did not in response. When asked about Gingrich's Foreign Policy piece, a high-ranking State Department official who had not read it nonetheless was willing to dismiss it, calling the former Speaker of the House a "nutcase." This was merely a succinct recitation of the charge lobbed by State's number-two official, Richard Armitage, back in April: "It's clear that Mr. Gingrich is off his meds and out of therapy."
Though State's response may seem petty and immature, it is effective — at least with the press corps. When the senior State official made the "nutcase" comment, one journalist giggled something to the effect of, "I liked Armitage's comment. That was fun." Regardless of what that particular reporter thought of Gingrich, the message to State was unmistakable: Make this a personality conflict with a "crazy" Newt Gingrich and no one will pay attention to his substantive criticisms.
As evidence of his claim that State does not always work on the same page as the White House, Gingrich pointed to the incident where, on March 31, the North Korean government admitted — for the first time — that it was reprocessing plutonium. Pyongyang told State Department officials, but those officials did not in turn tell anyone at the Pentagon or the White House about this. They withheld the information because they feared that the "hawks" inside the administration might cancel the talks with North Korea and China scheduled for mid-April. Pentagon and White House officials, in fact, did not learn of the stunning admission until the North Koreans announced, on the eve of the talks, that they had already divulged the information.
For nearly two months now, State has refused to specify who was told about North Korea's admission. When this journalist asked deputy press secretary Phil Reeker at the daily press briefing on Tuesday, Reeker did what no one else from State has done publicly: He claimed that others outside of the State Department knew of Pyongyang's March 31 statement, though he refused to say if the White House or the Pentagon had been told. Though Gingrich did not mention it, the North Korea situation is a perfect example of how the White House drops the ball on reform — no heads have rolled, and it appears that no one has even been formally rebuked.
If someone wanted to critique Gingrich on the merits, there is a legitimate debate to be had. Although most of his recommendations are grounded in common sense, there is one significant shortcoming: Gingrich does not propose enough reform. He calls for a "top-to-bottom transformation," but he steadfastly refuses to concede that personnel must be at least somewhat overhauled as a necessary component of any such reform. Gingrich is entirely correct when he emphasizes that Powell is not the problem, but many of the people beneath Powell do constitute "the problem." There are organizational problems, but Gingrich's proposed structural fixes most likely will not entirely cure State's corrosive culture.
Even if Gingrich does not offer a panacea, each of his proposed reforms should be given maximum consideration. Change will not come soon, but it seems that the former Speaker of the House's attention will not be diverted away anytime soon, either. They can call him nuts, but the fact remains that the State Department will continue to rot without much of what he recommends.
GW has enough food on the plate. The pantry is full. He doesn't have to go to the store every day.
In the meantime, some surrogates might be telling us what is on the shopping list.
yitbos
Newt is absolutely right, and I'm glad he has the fortitude to say what's on his mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.